Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The will of the people, pro choice won by a massive majority, should the result be voided because the minority are not happy?

What part of my statement suggested that to you?

I am critical of the lazy voters who went out and voted based on misinformation that could and should have been verified themselves.

Not just in this vote but in all cases. People vote because Karen on Facebook said

secondrowgal

ELM327 wrote: »

She may not be one but that's the general type of person who pushes the "only men are to blame for pregnancy" nonsense.

Hi ELM

I don't think you've read it. She emphasised that (to use your words) "only men are to blame for unwanted pregnancy". It's a very well-thought and well-enunciated argument. Now you might not agree with it, that's fine. I'd actually be interested in any of the points that you specifically don't agree with and why, because in general I agree with your posts on here. That's why I think you haven't read it because you've dismissed it out of hand and you've dismissed it using a rebuttal to an argument that she didn't make.

ELM327

secondrowgal wrote: »

Hi ELM

I don't think you've read it. She emphasised that (to use your words) "only men are to blame for unwanted pregnancy". It's a very well-thought and well-enunciated argument. Now you might not agree with it, that's fine. I'd actually be interested in any of the points that you specifically don't agree with and why, because in general I agree with your posts on here. That's why I think you haven't read it because you've dismissed it out of hand and you've dismissed it using a rebuttal to an argument that she didn't make.

You cannot assign "blame" to one of two parties for unwanted pregnancy. That's nonsense

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I never said any such thing.

Ok. So I gave you a scenario. A woman is in a monogamous relationship. She does not want to have a baby. She uses protection. It fails. What's your suggestion?

nozzferrahhtoo

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Notice how you use the word seemingly. And comparing a fetus to rock - why am I not surprised.

One thing you learn in science is not to be 100% certain of anything. There is simply no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to think a 12 week old fetus has any more sentience or consciousness than a rock has. That is simply the facts of the matter at this time, and therefore the facts I have to work with.

So there is nothing wrong with the word "seemingly" here. And if taking issue with a single word, rather than with my point, is the best you can do then "Why am I not surprised".

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Call it what you want to make yourself feel good. It’s doesn’t. Terminate, abort, kill.

That's what you do. I do not call things what I feel I like. I call things what they ARE. What the fetus is, is a non-sentient non-conscious blob of biological matter. If YOU want to call it something else, by all means do. It will not turn it into something it is not.

secondrowgal

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot assign "blame" to one of two parties for unwanted pregnancy. That's nonsense

So you haven't read it then, right. Fair enough.

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Seems like a good opportunity for you to clarify your position, given the confusion.



Here's a refresher of the conversation's flow:




In Reply you said:




Then another poster asked you directly:





And now we're here, at this point, asking for clarity on your radio silence.

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to be responsibile for your actions.

sydthebeat

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to ve responsibile for your actions.

Theres no unborn baby.

Therein lies the fallacy of your argument

ohnonotgmail

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to ve responsibile for your actions.

so if a woman becomes pregnant despite taking precautions you think she should be forced to carry the baby to term. No wonder your side lost so badly.

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to ve responsibile for your actions.

Your problem is women having sex for enjoyment so. I've had enough babies. 4 to be precise. I want to enjoy sex with my husband. We use protection. We can't afford to have another baby. So we should just stop having sex?

LorelaiG

LorelaiG wrote: »

If abortion for medical reasons already existed why did we have women who travelled to England to compassionately end the pregnancies where their (much wanted and loved) babies were going to die either in utero or shortly after birth?

The non viability of the pregnancy wasn't included in the conditions to my knowledge. It had to be a medical concern for the mother.

We're you aware that medical need abortion were performed in Ireland prior to the vote?

keybordWarrior

sydthebeat wrote: »

Theres no unborn baby.

Therein lies the fallacy of your argument

Yes there is. But you’ll deny it so you can justify what’s convenient for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so if a woman becomes pregnant despite taking precautions you think she should be forced to carry the baby to term. No wonder your side lost so badly.

There is even one user around boards who feels that ALLOWING her an abortion is actually a form of oppression. Because "lower class" women who are forced to carry through with the pregnancy will be motivated by the existence of the child to better themselves. The same user suggested the abolition of things like single parent social welfare allowances in order to facilitate further this self betterment.

ohnonotgmail

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is even one user around boards who feels that ALLOWING her an abortion is actually a form of oppression. Because "lower class" women who are forced to carry through with the pregnancy will be motivated by the existence of the child to better themselves. The same user suggested the abolition of things like single parent social welfare allowances in order to facilitate further this self betterment.

I read that as well and i still cant believe that i read it.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The non viability of the pregnancy wasn't included in the conditions to my knowledge. It had to be a medical concern for the mother.

We're you aware that medical need abortion were performed in Ireland prior to the vote?

immediate threat to life of the mother only. the key word being immediate. so doctors had to wait until it deteriorated to the point it was immediate before before they could intervene. UNfortunately that is a difficult decision for a doctor to make so you end with women like Savita dying while doctors dithered. do you not see how utterly stupid that was?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

If medical abortions were so readily available savita halappanavar wouldn't have died.

Your post is an insult to her memory

Boom! Right there. This is exactly the blatant misunderstanding that led to such a one sided vote.

Our abortion laws had zero to do with her death. She had an illness that was not detected due to medical negligence. Had it been, an abortion would have been considered.

Jeez, can't you even read a wiki entry before commenting?

Abortion in Ireland was legal since 1992 in certain medical situations; "Attorney General v X, [1992] IESC 1; [1992] 1 IR 1, (more commonly known as the "X Case") was a landmark Irish Supreme Court case which established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide."

The numbers were small because in the vast majority of cases, it's not a medical requirement. And by the way, in the situation you describe, I would support abortion.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

immediate threat to life of the mother only. the key word being immediate. so doctors had to wait until it deteriorated to the point it was immediate before before they could intervene. UNfortunately that is a difficult decision for a doctor to make so you end with women like Savita dying while doctors dithered. do you not see how utterly stupid that was?

Read the notes, that's not true in either the findings or the 1992 decision

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Read the notes, that's not true in either the findings or the 1992 decision

she requested an abortion. that was denied to her. she had a miscarriage instead and developed sepsis. if she had the abortion she would be alive today. what part of that is incorrect?

nozzferrahhtoo

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Yes there is. But you’ll deny it so you can justify what’s convenient for you.

Words like "baby" and "fetus" just like the words "seed" and "sapling" have well defined meanings. The Fetus is a fetus. You shouting the word "baby" at it does not change which word is the correct one, and which is not. The only one denying the real meaning of words out of convenience therefore is you.

But at the end of the day, it is irrelevant what you call it. It is just words. You can call it a fetus or you can call it a baby if you like. Or just call it "spledunknunk". The fact is that aside from being erroneous, calling it a "baby" does not change anything. The word in and of itself places no moral or philosophical onus upon us. One single label does not an argument make.

That is why you and your ilk not only lost the referendum battle, but lost it quite spectacularly. There was an obsessing over words and nothing more. So much time was put into arguing which word you wanted to use, that no time was spent actually trying to find and argue actual moral or ethical positions on the abortion debate.

And the Irish public saw through that, did not like just having words like "baby" and "life" shouted down from high horses, and they voted against you.

SO if you really do care about abortion I think you should stop making the same mistakes that lost the issue for you 2 years ago.... and try coming up with some actual arguments on the issue. That's my advice, take it or leave it I guess. I already know which it is likely to be.

keybordWarrior

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One thing you learn in science is not to be 100% certain of anything. There is simply no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to think a 12 week old fetus has any more sentience or consciousness than a rock has. That is simply the facts of the matter at this time, and therefore the facts I have to work with.

So there is nothing wrong with the word "seemingly" here. And if taking issue with a single word, rather than with my point, is the best you can do then "Why am I not surprised".



That's what you do. I do not call things what I feel I like. I call things what they ARE. What the fetus is, is a non-sentient non-conscious blob of biological matter. If YOU want to call it something else, by all means do. It will not turn it into something it is not.

Here is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics performed by so many pro-abortion people. Unborn babies are equivalent to rocks, it’s not an unborn baby it’s a blob of biological matter. It’s embarrassing for them.

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

Nope, it's a discussion on a discussion site, your statements were in conflict and I requested clarification - it's not on me to take responsibility for your lack of coherence.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to be responsibile for your actions.

So your position is "not to have sex?"*[1] and this is what you have claimed to have "never said any such thing"*[2].

The clarification is much appreciated, as I said your stance seemed in conflict with itself.

---

[1]

LorelaiG wrote: »

Ok. So, your suggestion is not to have sex? So your problem is women having sex for enjoyment rather than procreation?

[2]

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I never said any such thing.

ELM327

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Here is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics performed by so many pro-abortion people. Unborn babies are equivalent to rocks, it’s not an unborn baby it’s a blob of biological matter. It’s embarrassing for them.

using correct scientific terminology =/= "mental gymnastics"

Mr. CooL ICE

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Typical pro-abortion people looking to others for suggestions of what to do rather than taking responsibility.

There is always a risk of pregnancy with sex. If you still want to have sex, then you have accepted the risk. The unborn baby should not be punished because you don’t want to be responsibile for your actions.

LorelaiG wrote: »

Your problem is women having sex for enjoyment so. I've had enough babies. 4 to be precise. I want to enjoy sex with my husband. We use protection. We can't afford to have another baby. So we should just stop having sex?

keybordWarrior, you really need to answer this post if you want anybody to take your point.

If anything, it'll show you up to be someone who understands the reality of couples in sexual relationships. I.e, if you tell LorelaiG hat she should just be abstinent, you will come across as somebody who has never been in a sexual relationship themselves. In which case, nobody should give a toss what you have to say about this topic.

KiKi III

A friend of mine had an abortion last year because the foetus had a number of potentially fatal abnormalities. She got a bunch of extra tests done early on because it was a high risk pregnancy and had the abortion before 12 weeks.

So her reason won’t have been recorded, but it was medical.

KiKi III

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Yes there is. But you’ll deny it so you can justify what’s convenient for you.

From the point of view of a foetus, what’s the difference between a miscarriage and a termination?

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Nope, it's a discussion on a discussion site, your statements were in conflict and I requested clarification - it's not on me to take responsibility for your lack of coherence.



So your position is "not to have sex?"*[1] and this is what you have claimed to have "never said any such thing"*[2].

The clarification is much appreciated, as I said your stance seemed in conflict with itself.

---

[1]

[2]

Can’t you have sex AND be responsible for the risk it carries? No, you need to be able to do what you want without any responsibility by knowing you can just kill the unborn baby. You’ve show your true colors.

keybordWarrior

KiKi III wrote: »

From the point of view of a foetus, what’s the difference between a miscarriage and a termination?

Neither of us can speak from that point of view. That’s doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend them and allow them to be killed.

ELM327

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Can’t you have sex AND be responsible for the risk it carries? No, you need to be able to do what you want without any responsibility by knowing you can just kill the unborn baby. You’ve show your true colors.

You can't kill something that is not born yet.
Do you get a death certificate for an abortion or a miscarriage?

ELM327

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Neither of us can speak from that point of view. That’s doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend them and allow them to be killed.

LMAO
No answer = resort to silly language

KiKi III

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Neither of us can speak from that point of view. That’s doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend them and allow them to be killed.

Do you consider pregnancies that have miscarried to have been “killed”?